JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, convicting and sentencing appellant Aleshwar to undergo four years R.I. under Section 307, I.P.C. and the other appellant Jeet Narain to the same sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 2. The case against the appellants was quite brief. 3. A report was lodged at police station Gopiganj at 8.00 p.m. on 15.6.75. It was alleged in this report that the makers of the report Brahm Narain and Vishwambhar Nath had purchased some land from Smt. Champa Devi. A litigation about mutation of name in village papers in respect of transfer of land was being litigated with Jeet Narain and others. On that date at about 4.00 p.m., Brahm Narain had gone to meet Shri Nath Upadhyaya residing in his village Kuri Khurd, police Station Gopiganj At that time, Jeet Narain came and caught hold of Brahm Narain, Tileshwar, who was also accompanying Jeet Narain, attacked with a knife. On account of intervention of Shri Nath and his family members, the attack was averted. Jeet Narain had thereafter left Brahm Narain. Viswambhar Nath had arrived near the well. At that time, Tileshwar had launched attack on Vishwambhar with a knife to kill and inflicted injuries on his chest. Jeet Narain had caught hold of Kapoor Chand. Tileshwar had inflicted injuries on his person also. Mean while, Vindhya Basani (nephew of Brahm Narain) had snatched the knife from the hands of Tileshwar. The accused appellants ran away from the place of occurrence and could not be apprehended. Thereafter the injured and the reporters went to the police station along with the snatched knife and deposited it in the police station, and lodged report. 4. After investigation, the appellants were prosecuted. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses in all before the lower court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had come forward with a cross version. A report regarding this cross version had been made at the same police station at 7.20 p.m. on 15.6.76. A cross report was also started against the complainant party. 5. After appraising the evidence of the lower court, the learned Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. A report regarding this cross version had been made at the same police station at 7.20 p.m. on 15.6.76. A cross report was also started against the complainant party. 5. After appraising the evidence of the lower court, the learned Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. In this appeal, the parties have compromised and this compromise has been verifiedby the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur. 6. It was urged from the side of the appellants that no case under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out. Two patent defects have been pointed out. It was urged that admittedly no blood was found at the spot and, therefore the very place of the incident as alleged by the prosecution, is doubtful. It was also urged that there is no evidnce on record to show that the assault was made with an intention to commit murder of any one of the injured persons. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the State also. P.W. 1 is Brahm Narain. He has not stated in his examinationinchief that he or any one of the injured was attacked with the intention that the injuries may result into the death of the deceased. Serilaity Kapoor Chand (P.W. 2) has also not stated that the injuries were caused with an intention to cause death of any one of the injured. P.W. 4 is other eye witness. He too has given a simple statement that Tileshwar had given knife blow. He has also not stated that the intention of the assailants was to cause death. In this way, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had any intention to cause death. The lower court has based his decision for holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. only on this fact that the injuries on the person of the injured could be fatal as they were on chest. This is not a criteria for holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The ingredients of intention ought to be established quite meticulously. There is no evidence on record to show Miat there was such an intention. Hence at the best the appellants could be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. 8. This is not a criteria for holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The ingredients of intention ought to be established quite meticulously. There is no evidence on record to show Miat there was such an intention. Hence at the best the appellants could be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. 8. Since the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is compoundable, I find that the appellants should be acquitted in this case on he basis of the compromise. 9. No other point has been pressed. The appeal should be allowed. 10. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the lower court are modified to this extent that the appellants are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. only. Since the injured and the appellants have compromised; the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them on the basis of that compromise. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.